HFC Loan and DLC/Hillesden assignment?

[mcuth]

Received 2 letters from Hillesden Securities Ltd T/A Direct Legal & Collections today, as follows (verbatim, including what you might construe as an attempt at grammar!):

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

Our Clients: Hillesden Securities Ltd

Account number: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Balance outstanding: £xxxx.xx

 

Please accept this letter as notification that this agreement has been assigned to Hillesden Securities Ltd T/A Direct Legal & Collections. It is essential all future payments are made direct to Direct Legal & Collections.

 

You must let us have your immediate proposals for payment of the outstanding balance by calling 0870 7446482 within 48 hours.

 

Alternatively you can complete and return the insertion, headed "payment options" by return enclosing your first payment. A prepaid envelope has been provided for your convenience.

 

Payment proposals may be accepted or rejected at our discretion.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Debbie Bloxham

Team Leader

 

The other letter is from Sarah Revens, Team Leader - though both Debbie & Sarah appear to have the same "signature", LOL!

 

Now, this is in no way a notice of assignment, since it doesn't mention the original creditor *at all* (not by name, account number, anything), so I have no way of identifying who's making this claim

 

Anyway, since I've not had to deal with assignment yet, I wanted to take the advice of learned figures here What exactly is the creditor and/or buyer required to provide on assignment please?

 

TIA

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

Just throw ADVANCED CCA #1 at them

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxx

YOUR REF: xxxx

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY

 

With reference to the above account, I request that you send me a true copy of this credit agreement before I will correspond further on this matter.

 

This is my right under the legislation contained within section 77 (1) and section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and I am entitled to receive a copy of my credit agreement on request.

 

Your obligation also extends to providing me with a statement of account. I enclose a £1 postal order, which represents payment of the statutory fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act. I understand that a copy of my credit agreement should be supplied within 12 working days from the date of this letter.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act, creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with a request for a copy of the agreement under these sections of the Act.

 

Also, since you are a Debt Collection Agency, I would also ask that you supply a signed true copy of the executed deed of assignment for the above referenced agreement. This is an obligation, whether you are the original creditor or not, under section 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

For the sake of clarity, may I also draw your attention to the following:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.175

Where under this Act a person is deemed to receive a notice or payment as agent of the creditor or owner under the regulated agreement, he shall be deemed to be under a contractual duty to the creditor or owner to transmit the notice, or remit the payment, to him forthwith.

 

Non-compliance with my request is a criminal offence under the above Act and will result in a report being submitted to the relevant statutory authorities.

 

In summary, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS DEBT AND THEREFORE REQUIRE YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS BY PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION BEFORE I CORRESPOND FURTHER :

 

1. True copy of original credit agreement

2. Statement of account

3. Copy of the executed deed of assignment from (original creditor) and (DCA)

4. A fair processing notice.

 

As you are aware, a credit agreement that is not properly documented and signed by the customer is totally unenforceable under the CCA and therefore is a complete defence to any court claim that is issued.

 

Take note at this stage, that any legal action you may contemplate will be both vigorously defended and contested.

 

Further to the above, please ensure that any contact by yourselves is made in writing only to the above address. Telephone calls and personal visits will not be accepted and viewed as harassment.

I look forward to hearing from you within the statutory time limit.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

While there is NO legal requirement for the DCA to prove the assignment without court action, it never hurts to ask.

Normally what passes for assignment is the classic Good Bye/Hello letters.

So kill two birds, etc and get cheeky

 

Actually on rereading your post a change of tack.

Keep the CCA for later use and throw this at them instead.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Make them do some work, after all they MUST prove you owe a debt beofre they can collect on it.

[mcuth]

Thanks CB - from the balances quoted, I have a feeling that these are previously disputed accounts anyway (and defaulted CCA requests), so I have no real desire to throw another £1 or 2 at them

 

Just wondered where I stood on the "notice of assignment", and whether both the original creditor and the buyer should send letters and what those letters should contain?

 

Cheers

Michael

[pt2537]

Hi Michael

 

i will have to take a look and double check the requirements for Notice of Assignments

 

i know that the info is contained in halsburys laws so when i get a mo tomorrow i will have a look

 

 

regards

paul

[mcuth]

Hi Michael

 

i will have to take a look and double check the requirements for Notice of Assignments

 

i know that the info is contained in halsburys laws so when i get a mo tomorrow i will have a look

 

regards

paul

 

Thanks Paul - much appreciated

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

To be honest I wouldn't worry to much about this "assignment" as the term is seriously abused by DCA's.

 

Basically there's two types; Equitable and Absolute.

 

In Equitable the DCA has the rights to the debt, but the duties still reside with the OC. If any enforcement action is taken then it must be brought by the OC ONLY.

 

Absolute, as the name suggests, covers the complete account, so the rights and duties. This tends to be done under Law of Property 1925 s136.

In this case the DCA replaces the OC are the owner of the account and can bring enforcement action in their own name. This is a favourite of Cabbot, except they seem to get slightly confused in the operation of law.

[mcuth]

To be honest I wouldn't worry to much about this "assignment" as the term is seriously abused by DCA's.

 

Basically there's two types; Equitable and Absolute.

 

In Equitable the DCA has the rights to the debt, but the duties still reside with the OC. If any enforcement action is taken then it must be brought by the OC ONLY.

 

Absolute, as the name suggests, covers the complete account, so the rights and duties. This tends to be done under Law of Property 1925 s136.

In this case the DCA replaces the OC are the owner of the account and can bring enforcement action in their own name. This is a favourite of Cabbot, except they seem to get slightly confused in the operation of law.

 

Thanks CB - I do understand that distinction, but how do I know what sort of assignment it is if the "notice of assignment" simply says "this agreement has been assigned to us"? This is why I'm asking about what they're required to provide as a notice of assignment....

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

The only thing that would prove what type of assignment they have used would be the Deed of Assignment.

You are highly unlikely to get a copy of this as they contain sensitive commercial information and other peoples details as well.

 

I find the best way to find out what type of assignment they have used is simply to ask, admittedly they'll probably hide what they have done by simply saying LEGAL assignment.

[pt2537]

20. Notice in writing.

 

 

 

In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person1 from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action2. Where there are joint debtors and covenantors, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary3. The notice need not be formal4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving notice5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor8. If the debt is released or extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act9.

It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual10, though if no date is given at all the notice may be good11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly12.

The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given13, and a notice given after the death of the assignor14, or after the death of the assignee15, is effectual.

The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person16. Thus it may be given by the personal representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate assignee17.

In the case of a company, notice to the manager at the works, though not communicated by him to the head office, may be sufficient18.

It is thought that where there have been two assignments of the same debt, of both of which notice has been given to the debtor, but the assignee under the second assignment, without having notice of the first, gave notice to the debtor of his assignment before notice was given of the first assignment, he will have priority19.

If a debtor has given a negotiable instrument, for example a cheque, in payment of the debt, a subsequent notice that the debt has been assigned may be disregarded by the debtor even if the creditor still holds the cheque20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Amalgamated General Finance Co Ltd v CE Golding & Co Ltd [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163 (no legal assignment because no notice to underwriters); Shaw v Applegate [1978] 1 All ER 123, [1977] 1 WLR 970, CA (equitable assignment of benefit of negative covenant became legal when notice given to covenantor). It seems that notice should be served on every person who would be a necessary party to a claim on the debt: see Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723 at 736, [1937] 3 All ER 722 at 727–728, CA, per Greer LJ, and at 740 and 732 per Slessor LJ. Notice should, accordingly, be given to all trustees: see para 53 post. In relation to a cause of action in tort see also Perry v Tendring District Council [1985] 1 EGLR 260; RL Polk & Co (Great Britain) Ltd v Edward Hill & Partners [1988] 1 EGLR 142.

2 Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1). An assignment will be good in equity as between assignor and assignee without notice: Gorringe v Irwell India Rubber and Gutta Percha Works (1886) 34 ChD 128, CA. See further para 42 post. The suspensory character of the proviso in Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 489 meant that the notice of assignment did not satisfy the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925 s 136 (as amended).

3 Insolvency Act 1986 s 345(4); Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723, [1937] 3 All ER 722, CA.

4 Denney, Gasquet and Metcalfe v Conklin [1913] 3 KB 177.

5 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, [1968] 3 All ER 824, CA.

6 Hockley and Papworth v Goldstein (1920) 90 LJKB 111 (where the debtor's inability to read was well known to all the parties, and clear oral notice was given but was ineffective).

7 Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1).

8 Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1, [1942] 1 All ER 404; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476, [1973] 1 WLR 757 (affd [1974] 1 All ER 161, [1974] 1 WLR 155, CA); and see para 21 post.

9 Lee v Magrath (1882) 10 LR Ir 313 at 319, 326, CA (where the transferor appointed the debtor her executor); Re Westerton, Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch 104 (payment of interest to assignor of fund before notice of assignment of fund). Cf Jenkins v Jenkins [1928] 2 KB 501.

10 Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839; WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA. It is not so in the case of an equitable assignment: Whittingstall v King (1882) 46 LT 520.

11 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, [1968] 3 All ER 824, CA.

12 WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA, obiter per Denning LJ.

13 See Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 at 538, CA.

14 Walker v Bradford Old Bank (1884) 12 QBD 511; Re Westerton, Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch 104.

15 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA.

16 See Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 at 538, CA.

17 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA (where the notice was given by the executor of a sub-assignee).

18 William Brandt's Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd [1905] AC 454, HL (a decision on an equitable assignment).

19 See Marchant v Morton, Down & Co [1901] 2 KB 829.

20 Bence v Shearman [1898] 2 Ch 582, CA.

 

 

 

 

.....

[pt2537]

Please note, non of the links in the attached doc above will work.

 

 

this is intentional so please dont PM me saying the links arent working

[mcuth]

Paul

 

Thanks for the info - so there's nothing governing what should be included - just that "a notice" must be sent? Oh, and the links in the doc don't work :D

 

The only thing that would prove what type of assignment they have used would be the Deed of Assignment.

You are highly unlikely to get a copy of this as they contain sensitive commercial information and other peoples details as well.

 

I find the best way to find out what type of assignment they have used is simply to ask, admittedly they'll probably hide what they have done by simply saying LEGAL assignment.

 

Ok, thanks CB

 

Cheers

Michael

[FANTASY CHARGES]

THINK it's time to repost this authorative post

 

COPY OF DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF A DEBT

 

It may help if I suggest that while there is no obligation for a Creditor Assignee to provide a copy of a DOA when a request is made by a Debtor under ss.77,78 of the CCA 1974, there is no restriction on requesting the voluntary production in support of a claim of assignment. However, I doubt if a Creditor Assignee (or indeed the Assignor) would provide this information as the DOA would undoubtedly contain the consideration (the sum) paid by the Assignee. Nevertheless, I submit that if proceedings have been instigated in the County Court by the Creditor Assignee, then I believe the Defendant Debtor could serve on the Claimant a Part 18 Request For Clarification And Further Information (under the Civil Procedure Rules) referring to the DOA and enquiring if it is to be pleaded. I understand that a response is required to by way of a Statement Of Truth and any copy documents on which the Claimant intends to rely should be annexed thereto –the original documents to be produced at a subsequent hearing for inspection by the Court and the Defendant.

 

I assume that it is known that for a legal assignment (as opposed to an equitable assignment) of a debt to have effect so that the Assignee can sue in their/its own name, the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925 need to be fulfilled and that the assignment is not effective until the Debtor has received a Notice of Assignment – not the date when the Notice of Assignment was posted. Consequently, should a Creditor Assignee be unable to provide evidence of service and the Defendant has not received a Notice of Assignment when proceedings have already been brought in the County Court then, I suggest, it might be reasonable to file an application for the Claim should be struck out on the grounds that Assignment has not been pleaded and that proceedings cannot be brought prior to the service of a Notice of Assignment.

 

Authorities to check:

 

Law of Property Act 1925 s.136

 

Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476 [1973] 1 WLR 757

 

Hope this helps.

 

A Well Wisher.

[mcuth]

Ok then - I received letters dated 7th December from Ms Revens & Ms Bloxham regarding these accounts. The letters are basically the same as the above, but stating that the original creditor is HFC and there's an additional line about starting to report againts my credit file in 30 days. I sent the following response on 12th December:

 

I am in receipt of your letter of 7th December 2007, received yesterday. Thank you for expanding on the original creditor as this has assisted in locating the relevant paperwork.

After reviewing my records, I believe that you should never have been sold this account by HFC Bank, as it is under dispute with them. On 5th October 2006, I made a request under s.78 Consumer Credit Act (1974) (“the CCA”) which to date has not been fully complied with. HFC have therefore been in default of this request since 23rd November 2006.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, s.78 states:

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

HFC supplied a copy of an Application Form and some information relating to (a) & (b), but no copies of documents referred to in the Application Form, nor any information relating to ©. They are also under the misguided belief that the Application Form represents the actual executed Agreement, which it does not. HFC have been advised many times of my position in this matter, and that the account is in dispute.

 

The Office Of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance - Unfair Business Practices (July 2003) states that whilst this account is in dispute and being investigated you must cease all collection activity. HFC have clearly breached this by selling the agreement to yourselves in the first place, however, failure on your part to cease all collection activity will result in this matter being notified to the Office of Fair Trading and may constitute harassment contrary to section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Finally, with regards to your assertion that you will “start reporting against [my] credit file within 30 days” this letter also represents a formal Notice issued under s.10 Data Protection Act 1998 (“the Data Protection Act”):

I require that, within 7 days of your receipt of this Notice, you cease from processing personal data of which I am the subject and that you do not begin to process any personal data of which I am the subject, insofar as that processing involves the communication or passing of personal data of which I am the subject to any third party.

 

This Notice is given on the grounds that the processing or continued processing by you of the said data will be likely to affect my credit rating, reputation and cause substantial damage and/or substantial distress to me in addition to that which may already have been caused and that, as the processing of the said data in the way referred to in this notice would violate the Fourth, First and Sixth principles of the Data Protection Act, to do so would be unwarranted.

 

In the second instance, you have no authority and no legal basis to register a default, payment history, or any other data relating to myself with credit reference agencies – if you have done so, then you are required to remove any such information within 7 days of receipt of this Notice.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

{mcuth}

Eventually received a response last night, dated 2nd January and from A E Locke:

Dear {mcuth}

 

{Account refs}

 

Thank you for your recent letters dated 12 December 2007 regarding th eabove accounts. This {sic} has been passed to me for attention.

 

To comply with your requests under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, we require payment of the statutory fee, which remains at £1 under the 1974 Act.

 

Upon receipt of the funds we will be able to respond to your request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

{unsigned}

 

A E Locke

Director & Data Controller

Hmmm, someone can't read and/or understand.....so my reply to A E Locke is:

Dear Sir/Madam {well, there's no indication of gender!}

 

Thank you for your letter of 2nd January 2008, received yesterday.

 

Please re-read and familiarise yourself with the content of my letters of 12th December 2007 regarding the above accounts.

 

To summarise, the request under s.78 Consumer Credit Act (1974) (“the CCA”) was originally made to HFC Bank on 5th October 2006. As they have not complied, they have been in default of the request since 23rd November 2006. The accounts should never have been sold to you as they were clearly in dispute – this action alone being a clear breach of the OFT’s Debt Collection Guidance. As you have purchased the accounts, the resolution of this dispute is for you to take up with HFC Bank.

 

To clarify the above as a response to your letter - I do not believe that there is any obligation upon myself to send a payment of £1.00 to yourselves. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no intention of doing so.

 

Referring again to my letters of 12th December, for your reference I would note that there is no fee required for you to comply with your obligations under the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance - Unfair Business Practices (July 2003), nor is a fee required for you to comply with the s.10 Data Protection Act (1998 ) notice contained within & served upon yourselves by my letters of 12th December 2007. Your compliance with these items is mandatory, and failure to do so will result in complaints to the relevant authorites and action being taken against yourselves.

 

Of course, should you not wish to comply with any of the above, I would invite you to commence legal proceedings forthwith.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

{mcuth}

 

Set of muppets they are :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

Michael

[pt2537]

DOH

 

Head * Desk

 

"Dear Sir please remove foot from your mouths "

 

unbelievable example of a company ignoring you correspondence and carrying on regardless eh Michael , oh dear..

[mcuth]

DOH

 

Head * Desk

 

"Dear Sir please remove foot from your mouths "

 

unbelievable example of a company ignoring you correspondence and carrying on regardless eh Michael , oh dear..

 

Yeah I know - shocking isn't it?

In a weird way though, I love companies like this - gives me an opportunity to dust off my scathing letter writing skills (which have gone a bit rusty since all my charge claims got settled )

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

I love it when DCA's don't have a clue what they are doing.

Makes my life that much brighter

[mcuth]

And Hillesden's reply is in......

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

Account ref (they only quote one of the 2 accounts)

 

Thank you for your recent letter dated 4 January 2008 regarding the above account. This has been passed to me for attention.

 

I would confirm and advise the following:-

1. I acknowledge your letter in connection with your data request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. We are still awaiting a copy of your original agreement with HFC Bank Ltd. When this becomes available it will be forwarded to you.

2. If we are unable to forward a copy of the original agreement, we will be able to supply a true copy of the document which will comply with section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Should you require anything further at this point please contact me accordingly. I will update you on developments in 21 days if there are no developments beforehand.

 

Yours sincerely

 

{pp signed}

 

A E Locke

Director & Data Controller

 

So they've ignored pretty much everything I've told them, again - not that I expected them to understand that they've not got a leg to stand on

 

Now I just need to decide whether I can be arsed putting my creative skills to use and writing a really nice letter, or let them dig themselves further into a hole.... Since I've actually explained everything to them in plain English, I'm tempted to leave them alone to do the latter

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

Well you really don't have aything further to say to them.

 

I really like this part

2. If we are unable to forward a copy of the original agreement, we will be able to supply a true copy of the document which will comply with section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

So that would be a reconstituted agreement that is COMPLETELY unenforceable in court.

Oh dear so sad.

 

Time for TS as this is a totally unsubstantiated debt;)

[shirei12]

Rings a bell. As pt2537 states" Dear Sir please remove foot from your mouths "

Had dealings with these muppets,and with the help of CAG sent them packing with tail between their legs:)

[poochball]

Oh Mr Locke. I have actually spoken to this guy and he is alright.

 

I managed to get a default removed from DLC because they couldn't send me any proof.

 

The response you received is word for word the same one that I got.

 

I decided to pay my debt as I new it was mine etc and didn't want it hanging over my head.

 

Basically you will be waiting for ever and a day to get the copy documents, after six months Hillsden said they could not find it. I could have not paid at this point and also during the time they were getting the documents but like I said I knew I owed the money etc.

[mcuth]

I really like this part

 

2. If we are unable to forward a copy of the original agreement, we will be able to supply a true copy of the document which will comply with section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I like it too - for your reasons, and the fact that they're going to comply with s.77 (fixed sum) when the request is under s.78 (running account) because the accounts are for 2 credit cards!

 

Time for TS as this is a totally unsubstantiated debt;)

 

Well I'm sure I have more arguing to go - they'll probably supply a copy of the application form, like HFC did, and claim that's the agreement.... ho hum

 

And don't get me started on TS - that's a whole other thread.....!

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

Try talking to the DCA liaison at their local TS.

I have found these people to be alot more clued up on CCA and DCA's then the normal officers.

[mcuth]

Try talking to the DCA liaison at their local TS.

I have found these people to be alot more clued up on CCA and DCA's then the normal officers.

 

Yeah, might have to do that if/when I get a response, thanks.

 

Reason I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about TS is that my contact at my local TS (that I'd previously logged the complaint against HFC with) is on maternity leave and in her absence they forwarded my complaint to the FSA - the FSA then wrote (getting loads of details wrong) and advised me to complain to the OFT or the FOS!

 

Cheers

Michael

[mcuth]

Awww, I've had a reply from my friend A E Locke

He/She's so nicely supplied a copy of "Your priority application for the Marbles card" and a few weeks ago I got some statements - no way enforceable, or any attempt at being close to what s78 CCA requires...

 

Such a shame, I expected a much better effort than that (well, no I didn't, 'cos I knew they had nothing else)

 

Oh, and the application form has PPI on too - that'll be interesting if they want to push it

 

Cheers

Michael

[mcuth]

And here's a copy of the "agreement" they're relying on:

 

scan0001_blanked.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

So, here's what they're getting via post:

 

I am in receipt of your letter and attachment of 8th April 2008.

As I’m sure you are aware, s78 Consumer Credit Act (1974) states:

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

You have thus far supplied a copy of an application form page and account statements. These do not satisfy your obligations under s78 above and therefore you are still in default of the request made to HFC on 5th October 2006.

 

Whilst on the subject, the copy application form you have supplied is in no way an enforceable agreement. If you intend to rely on this application form as “the agreement” in any legal action, then I would recommend that you seek advice from a member of your legal team knowledgeable in the Consumer Credit Act (1974), the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and relevant case law. After seeking such advice, if you still believe that the application for is an agreement, I would invite you to commence legal proceedings forthwith and remove the need for perpetual correspondence on this matter.

 

I would also remind you that you have not replied to my Notice of 12th December 2007 issued under s.10 Data Protection Act 1998. Your attention is brought to s10(3) which states that a response is required within 21 days.

 

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, you are again formally notified that I do not acknowledge any debt or monies due to yourselves or any party connected to the above reference and you are put to strict proof that I am liable for any alleged amount. The Office Of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance - Unfair Business Practices (July 2003) states that whilst this alleged amount is in dispute and being investigated you must cease all collection activity. Failure to do so will result in this matter being notified to the Office of Fair Trading and may constitute harassment contrary to section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Yours faithfully

 

{mcuth}

Cheers

Michael